|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 15:13:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 11, 2008 15:13:46 GMT -4
but there are secret deals that could have happened. you see that you can't judge because you don't know all the details.. That's such a cop-out... If that's the case, then why believe anything...? You're just making excuses for your insistence on staying ignorant of the subject. If you want to keep living in the dark, then fine, but then don't complain to us when the answers we give - which are based on the globally accepted and verified facts of the most documented event(s) in world history- don't meet with your standards, or lack there of. Cz
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 15:17:15 GMT -4
If that's the case, then why believe anything...?
yes, you shouldn't take anything forgranted..
it is not like Newton's gravity rule because you as a layman can testify that the apple falls down so he should be right. Apollo doesn't fit here..
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 11, 2008 15:28:43 GMT -4
If that's the case, then why believe anything...?
yes, you shouldn't take anything forgranted.. You obviously haven't got a grasp on the concept of sarcasm, either... Cz
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 11, 2008 15:52:21 GMT -4
If that's the case, then why believe anything...?
yes, you shouldn't take anything forgranted.. it is not like Newton's gravity rule because you as a layman can testify that the apple falls down so he should be right. Apollo doesn't fit here.. Newton was a scientist. He developed Laws of motion, for which there are no exceptions. Apollo used these laws in accomplishing their missions. They "took them for granted" in every sense of the word. Just as scientists understand radiation, heat flux, material properties, and other precise sciences. There are indeed things we understand that can be taken for granted. Now, on the hoaxer side, there are those who cannot understand some of the seemingly contradictory nature of spaceflight. To speed up an orbit, you must first slow down. Lead is a bad shield against some forms of radiation, while plastics are better. Vaccuums create visual displays noone outside manned spaceflight had ever seen. Yes, Virginia, there are things we can, and do, take for granted in spaceflight. It's not magic, nor chance...it's science. Apollo fits perfectly here, it's those who don't understand the science who have the doubts. Even bothering to understand this at a basic level opens up new worlds.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 11, 2008 16:00:41 GMT -4
Sometimes because you know little about some science, you think you can answer everything. In fact, you can't do so unless you are an expert in it.
Baloney. Computing the orbital period of an object is grade-school physics. Sam Colby, whose claim to be an expert on Apollo you bought hook, line, and sinker, can't even do that. And you won't do the elementary calculation to see that, a calculation that any reasonably competent 12-year-old could do.
again, I am not a space expert. Why would I be too sure that elementary physics applies or doesn't apply to what is addressed?
Because the question is one of elementary physics, and can be found in an elementary physics textbook, and is studied in elementary physics classes, and is used by every spacefaring enterprise. The simple test we provided for you does not require expertise, only the willingness to see for yourself. You refuse to do so and keep hiding behind an appeal to ignorance.
Now I can't recall the mathematical operations we had, but once, we were searching with the teacher on how to use the calculator, and how to do minus on the calculator. The gatekeeper was there and said: here is the minus, and he was referring to the simple minus on the calculator. The operation spoke about a completely different thing, I think it was shift+minus and exponentials and stufff liek that, which drove the math teacher to say: no, it is completely a different thing..
A simple misunderstanding of context, and utterly irrelevant. You're getting desperate to keep your smokescreen in place.
So why don't you listen to real experts? . their [i.e your] behaviour suggests previous bias. It s not unnatural, ppl get attached to things and ideas, but I am sorry, I don't judge you as objective.
Name one fact I have misrepresented, and show why. Name one facet of space technology or operations I have misrepresented, and show why.
Even if I am biased, I have given you verifiable facts. Your refusal to acknowledge them speaks to your own bias: you are determined to deny and doubt Apollo.
Why is that? Is it a religious thing? Are you angry that the U.S. accomplished it first?
Several of us did our own calculations, and provided them to you. I don't recall seeing any from you, but if you care to provide me a reference I'll be happy to retract that. I went through long debate through private messages with Postbaguk, where he and I made several experiments, with each sticking to his conclusion.
Not being privy to the private communication, I will stipulate to your claim, and simply remind you that you rejected my own calculations based on nothing more than your own subjective opinion.
bias versus expertise.. see above..
Correct. Your bias against our expertise.
what I am saying is that if your responses can be true, even if I was against them or felt them unlikely at some point, many others felt likely and not weird. that supports your case better to me rather than just not asking or not knowing that you have a suitable answer.
Clearly this is not the case, at least in the context of this forum. Many others here are in broad agreement that refutations of your claims are "likely and not weird", yet you continue to reject "our case" out of hand.
So, no, I don't buy it. It smacks of DavidC's appeal to hypothetical "experts" and "lurkers and viewers". It's just a rhetorical device to keep the smokescreen of doubt up while holding out for a supposed impartial jury which will never actually be convened.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 11, 2008 16:03:42 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 11, 2008 16:24:51 GMT -4
it is not like Newton's gravity rule because you as a layman can testify that the apple falls down so he should be right. Apollo doesn't fit here..Baloney. Newtonian mechanics is used to control the trajectory of every launch vehicle, every satellite, and every lunar and deep-space probe ever launched. Hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce and the welfare of billions of people relay absolutely on "Newton's gravity rule", because without this knowledge there would be no weather satellites, no GPS, and greatly limited long-distance telecommunications - just to name a few items. Apollo fits exactly in the Newtonian context. Newton worked out the equations for the Moon's motion centuries ago, as well as the equations to place a vehicle into orbit. With relatively minor relativistic corrections, Newtonian mechanics accurately predicts the motion of every body in the solar system, including everything mankind has ever launched into space. Your claim is absurd and refuted by every satellite TV dish, every emergency transponder, every transoceanic phone call not carried by undersea cable, every aircraft, boat, car, and pedestrian finding their way with GPS, every lovely picture transmitted from Mars or the rings of Saturn, and every time hundreds of thousands of lives are saved by early hurricane predictions or climatic observations. The world around you and above you laughs at the ridiculous - desperate - conjecture that somehow we can't be sure of how things really move in space. In this post, I provided you an explicit citation for the orbital period of a spacecraft around the Moon, showing how ridiculous Colby's claims were. You simply whined how you "couldn't judge" then, and you keep doing so, even though judging would require you to spend about one minute using such advanced functions on a calculator such as the multiply, divide, and square root keys. Your smokescreen has worn away, and I will not accept your continued appeals to ignorance any longer. I'd actually have more respect for you if you simply admitted, "I don't believe Apollo happened, and nothing you say will change my mind." That, at least, would be honest.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 11, 2008 16:39:34 GMT -4
Lionking... This is a picture taken by the Apollo 15 crewThis is a Computer Created Image of the same area based on the Japanese Kaguya probe data. Now, here's the thing, you have three choices. Either NASA really sent 2 guys there and they took a genuine photo, NASA somehow managed to totally fluke the background with 1970's technology, or the Japanese are in on the whole thing. Which do you think is most likely?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 11, 2008 16:41:50 GMT -4
Lionking, you're simply using ignorance as an excuse to shield yourself from discovering the very real possibility that Apollo may have actually happened as history records it. I think you like it that way. Staying ignorant insulates you from finding out that your preferred world view may not be the correct one. You can just go merrily along believing whatever you want by claiming to be too ignorant to understand any argument that's not to your liking. I think you're scared of learning the truth.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 11, 2008 16:44:49 GMT -4
what is the use if they are not related to Apollo?
Because the intellectual tools used to differentiate between the facts about Apollo and Sam Colby's claims can be used in a wide variety of circumstances to separate truth from false claims. Learning to better employ those tools is one of the reasons why I participate in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 11, 2008 16:50:58 GMT -4
but it takes only one wrong thing in NASA to cast doubt on everything. What about "one wrong thing" from conspiracy theorists? Would that cast doubt on their theories? Aulis said Stuart Roosa was on the Moon with Alan Shepard but Apollo 13's LMP was Ed Mitchell, Roosa was the CMP. Milton William Cooper said the Apollo 13 explosion happened on Aquarius at 13:13 military time. It really happened on Odyssey at 21:07. Sam Colby said Alan Bean and Ken Mattingly didn't fly in space after their Apollo flights. Bean was on the second manned Skylab flight and Mattingly was on two Space Shuttle flights. Bill Kaysing said only six Saturn V's had been launched. There were 13 Saturn V launches. Several HBs say Neil Armstrong has never been interviewed about Apollo 11, but it's easy to read the Apollo 11 ALSJ or go to Google Video and watch his 60 Minutes interview. I'm not scientifically-minded. But these types of things are easy to look up, and when the conspiracy theorists make these mistakes, I have to wonder what else they're wrong about. I have to question how much research they've really done.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 11, 2008 19:50:58 GMT -4
There are others who provide different explanations, and I CAN'T JUDGE WHETHER YOU OR THEM ARE RIGHT... Lionking, what you have just said is precisely this: 'If I find something I cannot understand, no explanation will help me determine what is right because I cannot understand it anyway.' If that is the case, what on Earth is the point of asking for explanations if you won't understand the answer anyway?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 11, 2008 21:15:46 GMT -4
If there is one thing that you find that is wrong with Apollo, it casts doubt on that one thing. Try this--explain to me how the core samples, which all geologists agree are lunar in origin, were faked in a way to convince them. You don't have to understand yourself what caused the distinction, though again, it takes very little time to learn that. All you have to explain is why and how geologists are fooled.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Dec 16, 2008 13:04:55 GMT -4
lionking, like you I am not an expert in any of this stuff, but I can evaluate the evidence provided on sites like this (and the hoax sites) and make my mind up accordingly.
On the evidence I have seen and my expanded understanding of the physics I learned in secondary school, I have no doubts whatsoever that the moon landings happened.
So ... does that make me biased, if I were to answer a question?
From reading your posts I can't help thinking that you are confused in your rejection of Jay and sts60's responses as being biased.
Most importantly, it is possible to be objective AND have made your mind up about an issue. If you have examined the evidence and concluded that the Apollo moon landings happened that is a perfectly acceptable OBJECTIVE point of view.
You seem to be saying that people on this site are biased solely because they believe that the evidence shows clearly that Apollo happened as advertised and are prepared to use that self-same evidence, and the science behind it, to answer the claims of Sam Colby, Bart Sibrel and others which are trotted out here with regularity.
|
|